From this article in The Washington Post.
From this article in The Washington Post.
In an age rife with selling out, it’s nice to see that someone still has his head on straight. I first read John Densmore’s book in the fourth grade[1], and thought he had an interesting voice for a rock and roll star. The aforementioned article is from 2002, but I stumbled over it for the first time this past weekend. I particularly like the letter Tom Waits wrote in response.
[1] It’s worth nothing that I had to bring in a note from my parents in order to check The Catcher in the Rye out of the library that year, but the Olde Creek librarians didn’t seem to have any problem with me reading Riders on the Storm. Apparently sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll is perfectly appropriate subject matter for a ten-year-old (not that I’d argue with that), but angry portrayals of existential angst and disillusionment must be kept under lock and key. Of course, these were the same librarians who almost blew a gasket when I casually asked if the library contained a copy of Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood, so why am I surprised?
From Mark Kleiman, a truly disturbing press release from the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University discussing the effects of the California High School Exit Exam on statewide graduation rates.
For those of you unlucky enough to live in one of the other 45 states (sorry folks, Virginia, Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania are commonwealths), the CAHSEE is a two-part exam administered to all California public school students for the first time in the 10th grade, the purpose of which is “to significantly improve pupil achievement in public high schools and to ensure that pupils who graduate from public high schools can demonstrate grade level competency in reading, writing, and mathematics.” Beginning in the 2005-2006 school year, students who fail to pass the test prior to the end of their senior year cannot receive a high school diploma. For those of you reading from my favorite commonwealth, these tests are not unlike our own Standards of Learning, except that they’re less comprehensive and required only of high schoolers.
Even without reading the release, it doesn’t take a genius to guess why the CRP is up in arms. Professor John Rogers from the UCLA Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access claims that low-income, minority, and disabled students have “been denied access to qualified teachers and other conditions essential for learning” and that it’s “unspeakable that these students must pay such a high price for the state’s failure to educate them.” According to Liz Guillen at Public Advocates, “[the CAHSEE] by itself is not a true accountability measure. Real accountability would ensure that the State and schools are actually providing students adequate opportunities to learn.”
Given that the 2004-2005 failure rates for the state as a whole were 35% for English Language Arts and 37% for Mathematics, there’s almost certainly some merit to these claims. Assuming that the CAHSEE offers an accurate appraisal of the skills the state of California believes its high school graduates should posses (and it may not: the early versions of the Virginia SOLs were ridiculously difficult), it would certainly be hypocritical (and, more importantly, totally unfair) for the state to punish students for its own inability to educate them.
On the other hand, there’s a larger issue here, and the question at the heart of it is this: what should it mean to have a high school diploma? The legitimacy of the specific objections being raised by the CRP and the IDEA notwithstanding, the sense of entitlement they exhibit in their reports is, to be frank, quite appalling. Professor Kleiman, in his aforementioned post, says “I never knew…that it was a civil right to get a high-school diploma now matter how little you know, and consequently to have a high-school diploma that certifies precisely nothing about your abilities and which therefore has roughly no value in the job market.” Clearly this is not quite the claim being made, but I would wager that if the failure rates were only 5% (or even 1%) these same organizations would be complaining that the state was, in some manner, discriminating against the failing students and denying their fundamental rights.
Like most meritocrats, the idea that the public school system somehow “owes” every child a diploma is anathema to me. The implementation of the exit exams may leave a lot to be desired, but the idea that there’s a minimum set of skills every student is expected to acquire in order to graduate from high school doesn’t seem unreasonable in my book (although the assertion that this set should have cardinality two and contain only the elements “English” and “Mathematics” certainly does). There seems to be a vocal portion of the population, however, that believes it’s only fair to impose “standards” on students if the school system can guarantee that all students will meet those standards. If I had to guess, I’d wager that these are the same people who refuse to allow alternate theories of creation to be taught to our young, impressionable progeny.
Anyone who has ever taught a class with a non-zero number of students in it knows that it does not matter how much you care, how hard you try, or what you do: some students will not do the work. Pardon me for stating the obvious, but if these students cannot then master the material through osmosis or the black arts, they should (gasp!) fail. Instead of worrying that these students will be irreparably damaged by their failure and concocting various ways to spare their feelings, I would like to propose an alternate strategy. Not only do I think it’s appropriate for such students to be denied a diploma, I believe we should take things a step further. I propose that we require these students to wear, “on the breast of their gowns, in fine red cloth, surrounded with an elaborate embroidery and fantastic flourishes of gold thread,” a scarlet ‘F‘. Furthermore, in fine Nelsonian tradition, I think we should encourage the rest of society to mock these students, not in an overwhelmingly malicious manner, but rather a quiet, pervasive “Ha Ha!” that conveys a healthy measure of non-acceptance towards indolence and irresponsibility.
Perhaps–and I know even suggesting this will cause me to lose my liberal credentials–perhaps if societal attitudes were adjusted so that intelligence and education were seen as admirable qualities, more people would aspire to them. Perhaps if students were told up front that they would be required to meet certain standards, perhaps if it was made clear that persistent, obstinate, intentional ignorance would result in a life flipping burgers at McDonald’s and not in the public school system bending over backwards to dole out diplomas, perhaps students would, gosh, I don’t know, work harder? Perhaps part of the problem is not that we are being unfairly harsh, but that we are being unfairly lenient. Perhaps the indomitability of the human spirit would be best drawn forth from our students by truly challenging their intellect, rather than aggrandizing and affirming their ignorance.
And hey, if none of that works, we can always try cooking and eating them.
…but Liz Phair is awesome live, redwood trees are really big, and The Aristocrats is freakin’ hilarious.
Since way too much happened at this year’s SIGGRAPH to even begin to write about it all, here are some highlights and statistics:
